Should we shut down Canada's nuclear reactors?

GWiz · March 17, 2011

That's right, and the Canadian Shield has plenty of hills for everyone to run to when all hell breaks loose at the nukes.

In Pickering Ontario, home of the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station, there is has been a surge of people buying up iodine pills in the local pharamacies. No doubt a residual effect of the news from Japan. Kind of like this thread.

Don't be too sure, remember where the last little Canadian Earthquake "hit"...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2010/06/23/tor-earthquake.html

Does the St. Lawrence follow an ancient "fault line" in the Earth?

The Laurentian Mountains just "appeared" or were they "pushed up"?

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0007094

Like I said NEVER underestimate nature, one does so at their own great peril...

eyeball · March 17, 2011

And how is this any different from any other form of energy production? The problem in Japan isn't credibility, it's the problems that are always present after a major disaster. The people in the know are too damned busy to be constantly updating their superiors, and their superiors don't know enough to accurately report things to the press.

At any rate, Japan has few options to nuclear energy. Unless folks plan on living without electricity, I posit that we have to put up with some risk regardless of what form of electrical generation we use.

It's not different, I posit that Canadians will become even more risk averse in the face of ever mounting levels of public incredulity.

The people not in the know need to know that the people who are can be trusted.

ToadBrother · March 17, 2011

It's not different, I posit that Canadians will become even more risk averse in the face of ever mounting levels of public incredulity.

The people not in the know need to know that the people who are can be trusted.

The only way to know that, as hard as it may seem, is at the end of the process, not in the middle of it. Right now those responsible for keeping the nuclear crisis from turning into a catastrophe are, well, very damned busy doing just that. Holding breathless press conferences is not the kind of thing that engineers like to do, nor is it the kind of thing that they should be doing at this time.

Frankly I think everyone, particularly those not effected by the disaster (in short, just about everyone but the Japanese) should suspend judgment. If indeed we do end up with another Chernobyl, then heads will roll, and ultimately, and at great cost to be sure, we will learn a great amount which will allow for more rational and informed answers in the future. But this sort of knee-jerkism driven by the media and by a lot of anti-nuke activists who quite frankly milking this whole incident for their own ends will not produce rational, informed policy, but quite the opposite.

Mr.Canada · March 17, 2011

Typical knee jerk reaction syndrome. The nuclear reactors aren't on a major fault line. I don't see a tsunami going through Lake Ontario anytime soon. People need to settle down.

Shady · March 17, 2011

But this sort of knee-jerkism driven by the media and by a lot of anti-nuke activists who quite frankly milking this whole incident for their own ends will not produce rational, informed policy, but quite the opposite.

Exactly. It's the same thing we heard regarding the BP oil spill. And similar to Y2K, bird flu, swine flu, etc.

Molly · March 17, 2011

Don't be too sure, remember where the last little Canadian Earthquake "hit"...

That would be this one: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110316/OTT_Earthquake_110316/20110317/?hub=OttawaHome

No need to dredge back a whole year.

GWiz · March 17, 2011

That would be this one: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110316/OTT_Earthquake_110316/20110317/?hub=OttawaHome

No need to dredge back a whole year.

Quite right, my bad, thanks for pointing it out...

BTW, would THAT make it an "active" earthquake zone?

Molly · March 17, 2011

Quite right, my bad, thanks for pointing it out...

BTW, would THAT make it an "active" earthquake zone?

100-150 earthquakes per year? Oh, yeah. It could be considered active.

Wilber · March 17, 2011

That would be this one: http://ottawa.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20110316/OTT_Earthquake_110316/20110317/?hub=OttawaHome

No need to dredge back a whole year.

Just to put it into perspective that scale 5.0 quake in Ontario was the equivalent of 474 tons of TNT. The 9.0 Japan quake was the equivalent of 474 million tons. That's one million times stronger.

GWiz · March 17, 2011

100-150 earthquakes per year? Oh, yeah. It could be considered active.

shhhh, don't be an alarmist... Let's keep it to ourselves, maybe nobody will notice...

GWiz · March 17, 2011

Just to put it into perspective that scale 5.0 quake in Ontario was the equivalent of 474 tons of TNT. The 9.0 Japan quake was the equivalent of 474 million tons. That's one million times stronger.

So are you saying that those thousands and thousands of 5.0 and below earthquakes that are a constant in the Pacific rim, which includes Japan, PRECLUDE or can INCLUDE a rare MAJOR 7.5 or above earthquake?

OR, does it mean that in an "ACTIVE" earthquake zone a MAJOR 7.5 earthquake IS ALWAYS possible?

Just looking for a little clarity here, this isn't my thread, so I don't know if it's relevent to this thread or not...

Shady · March 17, 2011

Yep, the Pacific rim of fire is not much different than Ontario. :rolleyes:

*Double Facepalm*

(When the fail is so strong, one facepalm isn't enough.) :lol:

ToadBrother · March 17, 2011

Yep, the Pacific rim of fire is not much different than Ontario.

*Double Facepalm*

(When the fail is so strong, one facepalm isn't enough.)

Not much different all, if you ignore the fact that there hasn't been an active volcano in the Canadian shield in, oh, about two billion years.

Wilber · March 17, 2011

So are you saying that those thousands and thousands of 5.0 and below earthquakes that are a constant in the Pacific rim, which includes Japan, PRECLUDE or can INCLUDE a rare MAJOR 7.5 or above earthquake?

OR, does it mean that in an "ACTIVE" earthquake zone a MAJOR 7.5 earthquake IS ALWAYS possible?

Just looking for a little clarity here, this isn't my thread, so I don't know if it's relevent to this thread or not...

According to the Canadian government the three strongest known earth quakes to hit eastern Canada were in Quebec, a 6.2 in 1925, an estimated 7.0 in 1663 and a 7.2 off the Grand Banks in 1929. A 9.0 is still 365 times more powerful than a 7.2. Eastern Canada is hardly The Ring of Fire.

Molly · March 17, 2011

Here's one to peruse, but you can search your own info on mid-continent earthquakes/faults. The gist of any of them is the suggestion that the risk of large mid-continent quakes is almost impossible to predict, and that the absence of them in the past is as likely to indicate an enhanced as a reduced probability of one occurring in the future.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41628543/ns/technology_and_science-science/

William Ashley · March 17, 2011

According to the Canadian government the three strongest known earth quakes to hit eastern Canada were in Quebec, a 6.2 in 1925, an estimated 7.0 in 1663 and a 7.2 off the Grand Banks in 1929. A 9.0 is still 365 times more powerful than a 7.2. Eastern Canada is hardly The Ring of Fire.

BC is part of the ring of fire. SO is the Yukon.

Edited March 17, 2011 by William Ashley

wyly · March 17, 2011

to say major quakes cannot happen in the central regions of canada is just false...and they can be very big...only one nuclear power plant in canada is on a fault line but a plant does not need to be on the fault line for there to be damage...the biggest historical (1812) earthquake in the central continental region was estimated at 8.8 ...many little quakes are generally good, the fault lines that have infrequent quakes are potentially the most dangerous...

madmax · March 17, 2011

to say major quakes cannot happen in the central regions of canada is just false...and they can be very big...only one nuclear power plant in canada is on a fault line but a plant does not need to be on the fault line for there to be damage...the biggest historical (1812) earthquake in the central continental region was estimated at 8.8 ...many little quakes are generally good, the fault lines that have infrequent quakes are potentially the most dangerous...

You don't need an EarthQuake or Tsunami to have a nuclear catastrophy. Nuclear power is not safe. Its damn Dangerous. We limit the risk , but the risk is always there and never goes away. That is why Private Nuclear facilities are NEVER on the hook for any damage they cause.

wyly · March 17, 2011

BC is part of the ring of fire. SO is the Yukon.

as is western alberta...but the Yellowstone region just south of us is much bigger long term threat...

I even recall a small earthquake when I lived in saskatchewan seismically the safest area in canada...in 1909 saskatchewan was hit with a quake estimated between 5-6...

Shady · March 17, 2011

to say major quakes cannot happen in the central regions of canada is just false

Of course. As could a rain storm in the middle of the Gobi desert. With the issue related to Japan wasn't the earthquakes, it was the tsunami that followed. The central regions of Canada are not situated along the coast. So it's not something that's going to happen.

Also, comparing nuclear technology from the 1960s to present day technology is completely disingenuous.

Shady · March 17, 2011

I even recall a small earthquake when I lived in saskatchewan seismically the safest area in canada...in 1909 saskatchewan was hit with a quake estimated between 5-6...

Who cares. Once again, earthquakes aren't the problem.

Battletoads · March 17, 2011

There's nothing overly dangerous with nuclear power, provided it is competently managed.

Privatized nuclear power on the other hand is very dangerous.

wyly · March 17, 2011

There's nothing overly dangerous with nuclear power, provided it is competently managed.

Privatized nuclear power on the other hand is very dangerous.

nature doesn't care how competently it's managed...but ya nuclear power should be controlled by government inspectors and standards not company inspectors with profit motive...

interesting point made on CBC last night... compared to coal, oil and gas energy with probably thousands of job related deaths each year around the globe, nuclear power has an excellent safety record...the downside is if it has major incident large portions of land surrounding a nuclear plant can become uninhabitable/unusable for a very long time...

I still don't want one in my province...

Bonam · March 17, 2011

The media stories about a "meltdown" are idiotic fearmongering. The real story here should be that despite being hit by a MAGNITUDE 9 earthquake that leveled countless buildings and destroyed all kinds of facilities as well as killing thousands of people (bodies are still washing up on the shore), the nuclear reactors are SO safe and well built that none of the main containment vessels have been breached despite the severe damage and flawed operating procedures after the quake.

Shady · March 17, 2011

I still don't want one in my province...

That's cool. I'll take one or two in Ontario. I'll take the construction jobs, and the jobs associated with its operation and maintenance. I'll also take its clean, non-carbon producing power.

You can stick to oil and coal. :rolleyes: